Current radiation disaster manuals list the time-to-emesis (TE) as the key triage indicator of radiation dose. The data used to support TE recommendations were derived primarily from nearly instantaneous, high dose rate exposures as part of variable condition accident databases. To date, there has not been a systematic differentiation between triage dose estimates associated with high and low dose rate (LDR) exposures, even though it is likely that after a nuclear detonation or radiologic disaster, many surviving casualties would have received a significant portion of their total exposure from fallout (LDR exposure) rather than from the initial nuclear detonation or criticality event (high dose rate exposure). This commentary discusses the issues surrounding the use of emesis as a screening diagnostic for radiation dose after LDR exposure. As part of this discussion, previously published clinical data on emesis after LDR total body irradiation (TBI) is statistically re-analyzed as an illustration of the complexity of the issue and confounding factors. This previously published data includes 107 patients who underwent TBI up to 10.5 Gy in a single fraction delivered over several hours at 0.02 to 0.04 Gy/min. Estimates based on these data for the sensitivity of emesis as a screening diagnostic for low dose rate radiation exposure range from 57.1% to 76.6%, and the estimates for specificity range from 87.5% to 99.4%. Though the original data contain multiple confounding factors, the evidence regarding sensitivity suggests that emesis appears to be quite poor as a medical screening diagnostic for LDR exposures.
Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results (SEER) registry data abstracted from a priority 2 or higher reporting source from 2006 to 2008 were used to compare treatment patterns in 45–64-year old men diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer (LRPC) across states with or without radiation therapy-directed certificate of need (CON) laws and across independent cancer centers (ICCs) compared to large multi-specialty groups (LMSGs). Adjusted treatment percentages for the five most common LRPC treatments (surgery, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), combination brachytherapy with EBRT, brachytherapy, and observation) were compared using cross-sectional logistic regression between CON-unregulated and -regulated states and between LMSGs and ICCs. LRPC EBRT rates were no different across CON regions, but are increased in ICCs compared to LMSGs (37.00% vs. 13.23%, P < 0.001). Variation in LRPC treatment patterns by reporting source merits further scrutiny under the Affordable Care Act of 2010, considering the intent of incentivized accountable care organizations (ACOs) established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) and the implications of early descriptions of these new healthcare provider organizations on prostate cancer treatment patterns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.